Conservatives lining up in opposition to SOPA

This week saw growing signs of opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act on the …

Views on copyright law have never broken down cleanly along ideological or partisan lines, but many of the key supporters for the Stop Online Piracy Act have come from the political right. The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and it enjoys support from right-leaning, corporate-funded organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Tax Reform.

But a growing number of right-leaning individuals and organizations have come out against SOPA. Last Wednesday, the Heritage Foundation, one of the nation's largest and most influential conservative think tanks, published an article by senior research fellow James Gattuso warning about the "unintended consequences" of SOPA. And on Thursday, he was joined in opposing SOPA by Erick Erickson, editor of the popular conservative blog RedState.

In his article, Gattuso noted that SOPA would undermine Internet security by delaying the implementation of DNSSEC and by causing Internet users to use offshore DNS servers to circumvent DNS blocks. He also warned that government regulation of search results would be "the first step down a classic slippery slope of government interference that has no clear stopping point."

Gattuso's stance is notable because Heritage has traditionally supported strong enforcement of copyright law. As former US attorney general Edwin Meese put it in a 2005 article for Heritage, "stealing is stealing, and it must stop."

Gattuso agrees with Meese that the "stealing" needs to stop, but he argues Congress should deal with the problem "in a way that does not disrupt the growth of technology, does not weaken Internet security, and respects free speech rights." And he doesn't think SOPA fits the bill.

Erickson also opposes SOPA, and he is taking a more activist approach to the issue. In a Thursday blog post, he pledged to recruit primary challengers to run against conservatives who support SOPA.

"I love Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). She is a delightful lady and a solidly conservative member of Congress," he wrote. However, because Blackburn is a SOPA cosponsor, Erickson pledged to "do everything in my power to defeat her in her 2012 re-election bid."

Erickson proposed that liberals and conservative SOPA opponents make a pact in which each agrees to support primary challenges against SOPA cosponsors in their own parties.

In short, the fight over SOPA is less about left versus right than it is about declining industries—Hollywood and major labels—versus the Internet community. Conservative bloggers like Erickson, Matt Drudge, and Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds are as offended by the legislation as are their liberal and libertarian counterparts. Conversely, even staunch civil libertarians seem to get confused about copyright issues if they're too closely tied to Hollywood.

Speaking to CNET last week, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) predicted that Republican opposition would help kill SOPA. "I think the Republican House leadership will look and say, 'Unless we have the support of the vast majority of Republicans, we're not going to take the bill to the floor,'" he said.

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

I wish those of us on the right could reclaim the word liberal because conservative has such nasty connotations.

As if the word liberal doesn't also have nasty connotations?

I was going to say, I thought liberal became akin to everything that is wrong and unjust in the world. Conservative still just means a gun-toting self-involved redneck from what I can tell. The left was never that good at coming up with really slanderous references.

I wish those of us on the right could reclaim the word liberal because conservative has such nasty connotations.

As if the word liberal doesn't also have nasty connotations?

I was going to say, I thought liberal became akin to everything that is wrong and unjust in the world. Conservative still just means a gun-toting self-involved redneck from what I can tell. The left was never that good at coming up with really slanderous references.

Here in SC, CONSERVATIVE is akin to WHOLESOME and LIBERAL is said with a frown... like youve bitten into the licorice jelly bean thinking it was grape. But I only encounter that in my civilian life. When I'm activated and at drill, no one uses these words. I wonder why. Then again, we don't talk much politics on duty.

Perhaps it's still early as there are less than 10 comments and out friends (from the "creative industries" as well as nice guys from places like "GoDaddy") will come a bit later but... instead I see a lot of "conservative", "liberal", "left", "right" word slinging - I understand very little of that (for example I have no idea if the reps/dems are conservative or liberal-and what that really means).

Is there a simple way to understand the above or you have to be ingrained in US politics to get it?

I could care less for political ideologies, SOPA/PIPA needs to be stopped as soon as possible. Look the issue is not that we would be allowing pirates to roam free, in reality what hurts them is those people that sell bootleg DVDs for $5 in streets/subways, but also the fact that they would be messing with the very core of the Internet is a dreadful thought.

The words; Conservative, Republican, Liberal, Democrat, have drifted over the years to be virtually indistinct from one another.

They have become a D&D-esque statement for the alignment of one politiician or another rather than a statement of actual policy or political philosophy. The increasing partisan divide in the US is probably what drives this. It's so bad these days that I suspect even if one party were to write a bill espousing the nominal virtues of the opposing party, the opposing party would still vehemently block it as the evil acts of the "other".

My wife has taken to referring to the lot of them as Heffalumps and Woozles.

Is there a simple way to understand the above or you have to be ingrained in US politics to get it?

In reductionist terms:

Democrats = left = liberalRepublicans = right = conservative

This is, however, within the context of the American spectrum of politics, which in a Swedish framework probably resembles something more like center-right and extremist-right. What makes the SOPA fight interesting is that it doesn't address this political axis so much as the bought-out-by-industry-interests one.

Perhaps it's still early as there are less than 10 comments and out friends (from the "creative industries" as well as nice guys from places like "GoDaddy") will come a bit later but... instead I see a lot of "conservative", "liberal", "left", "right" word slinging - I understand very little of that (for example I have no idea if the reps/dems are conservative or liberal-and what that really means).

Is there a simple way to understand the above or you have to be ingrained in US politics to get it?

Nope. Even if you've never left the US for your whole life (as I have), the differences between left/right are very superfluous, as they mostly agree on everything anyways.

Most people look at it like one of those number lines, with a "center" and then people to the left or right of that center. Distribution of voters along this line closely resembles a bell curve, with the center determining who wins elections. The further you are from the center, the more likely you are to vote the party line, even if the devil was nominated as your presidential candidate. Thus, to actually have any meaningful impact on the body politic, its best to vote independent.

Of course, how far anyone person is "left" or "right" depends entirely on who is telling the story. Everyone always wants to pretend that they are close to the "center" and thus most closely aligned to the common will of the people, and that the other side is all the way over towards the "left" and thus closely aligned with communists. "Liberal" comes from a proud tradition of classical liberalism, which is what the US was founded on (it most closely resembles the modern Libertarian party): limited government with free markets (which must, as Adam Smith stated over and over, be restrained from conspiracies against the people). Current "liberals" are not classical liberals, but really more of populists: they support unions, advance ideas like rent-controls and welfare, are anti-corporation and pro-people, etc.The right has succeeded in making the term equivalent to socialism, which has been successfully equated to communism and thus evil. "Conservatives" supposedly actually embody fiscal classical liberalism while keeping most social issues ("Jude-Christian values" primarily) the same place they currently are.

Republicans are supposedly conservatives, while Democrats are supposedly liberals. In reality both rarely fit these terms accurately, as most Republicans have consistently voted for larger governments, and most Democrats have consistently voted for pro-corporation bills and for war; both have maintained things like Gitmo and NSA warrentless tapping in violation of the 4th Amendment. There are a few true liberals and conservatives on each side, and the rest are posing to get elected.

One small bit of confusion left:With different articles saying anti-SOPA support is growing from this party or this side and that side, have I got it right that basically all (or in other words: the two main) parties are starting to voice their disgust with SOPA (other than the politicians in each party who have taken a major deposit or probably have incriminating photos of course) ?

I wish those of us on the right could reclaim the word liberal because conservative has such nasty connotations.

Ha, depends on the media source. However, most of the popular ones on the web (that I run into, YMMV) seem to be populated by commenters that strongly believe Conservative = Evil Bastard. Ars falls into that category quite a bit, (again, in my opinion, not trying to start a flame war here).

It's unfortunate that both sides are so polarized that that kind of bitter hate for people with opposing viewpoints is common. I don't agree with most "liberal" positions, but I understand that the rational people that hold them generally do so for defensible reasons. If things were simply that clear cut in terms of right or wrong approach, then there wouldn't be much of a debate.

Simply labeling someone and then ignoring their arguments is at best intellectual laziness, and my guess is probably fueled by a bit of self-esteem.

My wife has taken to referring to the lot of them as Heffalumps and Woozles.

which ones are which?

Does it matter, I should let the lyrics speak more lyrically than I

Heffalumps and Woozeles wrote:

They're black they're brown they're up their downThey're in they're out they're all aboutThey're far they're near they're gone they're hereThey're quick and slick and insincereBeware Beware Be a very wary bear

A Heffalump or Woozle is very confuselThe Heffalump or woosel is very sly- sly - sly - slyThey come in ones and twooselsbut if they so chooselsbefore your eyes you'll see them multiply- ply - ply - ply

They're extra-ordinary so better be waryBecause they come in every shape and size- size - size - size

If honey is what you covet you'll find that they love itBecause they guzzle up the thing you prize

One small bit of confusion left:With different articles saying anti-SOPA support is growing from this party or this side and that side, have I got it right that basically all (or in other words: the two main) parties are starting to voice their disgust with SOPA (other than the politicians in each party who have taken a major deposit or probably have incriminating photos of course) ?

Yep. Well, the main party leadership hasn't said anything yet, but the rank and body are starting to hear all the phone calls and emails from the censorship day and similar initiatives and are moving against it. Most importantly in US politics (esp. for Republicans) talk radio is starting to talk about the issue. Erickson is pretty influential, and if people like Hannity or O'Rielly pick up the story then a hailstorm of publicity will result.

Of course, opposition to this bill has been bipartisan from the beginning; Issa (a Repubican) and Polis (a Democrat), among others successfully introduced enough amendments to the bill that the markup hearing (which introduces the bill for a vote by the entire body of the legislature) , which started at 10 in the morning, continued on until 9PM. Likewise, support for the bill has indeed been bipartisan, albeit more Republicans seem to have been pushing it then Democrats. PIPA, the Senate counterpart to SOPA, was introduced by a Democrat (and has 40/100 co-sponsors).

Personally, I (almost, but not really) hope SOPA makes it to the floor, so I can have an easy litmus test for voting for my representatives.

The funny thing is that while America citizens on the left and right often have different ideas for how to govern America, the politicians they elect to actually run the country are funded by the same lobbyists. As a result the issues our politicians fundamentally differ on are few and far between. As an example of this, look at widely criticized agencies like the TSA. Even though large numbers of both left and right leaning citizens have seriously negative views of the TSA neither of our two political parties is willing to do anything about it. Why? Because it's become a huge disbursement agency that may or may not actually protect us from the next attack but is guaranteed to do a great job of redirecting our taxes into the hands of their benefactors.

One small bit of confusion left:With different articles saying anti-SOPA support is growing from this party or this side and that side, have I got it right that basically all (or in other words: the two main) parties are starting to voice their disgust with SOPA (other than the politicians in each party who have taken a major deposit or probably have incriminating photos of course) ?

Unless I'm mistaken, party leaders (Obama, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi) from both parties have yet to take a stand. If any of those 5 came out strongly against it, except for maybe Pelosi, the bill would be all but dead. Pelosi is the minority leader in the weaker house, giving her clout within her party, but not with what business gets taken up.

Unlike other issues, neither party is heavily intertwined ideologically in either side of the debate: so party affiliation is mostly meaningless.

It's unfortunate that both sides are so polarized that that kind of bitter hate for people with opposing viewpoints is common. I don't agree with most "liberal" positions, but I understand that the rational people that hold them generally do so for defensible reasons. If things were simply that clear cut in terms of right or wrong approach, then there wouldn't be much of a debate.

Yeah, I think most people who believe in a political ideology genuinely believe in it, and think it makes their country better.

Quote:

Ha, depends on the media source. However, most of the popular ones on the web (that I run into, YMMV) seem to be populated by commenters that strongly believe Conservative = Evil Bastard. Ars falls into that category quite a bit, (again, in my opinion, not trying to start a flame war here).

Yeah, don't bother reading any of the comments against SOPA on Reddit if you don't want to read this viewpoint. Actually, don't read Reddit at all

I wish there was a website for rational political discussion, with strict moderation to ensure meaningful comments and toleration of viewpoints. Like a bunch of kind old professors who vigorously disagree with one another, but still go out for drinks at conferences every year and laugh about stuff together.

Not sure what the intenion was in the comparison to "their liberal and libertarian counterparts" but I don't think it is reasonable to equate "liberal" with "libertarian" as they have substantially different beliefs. Libertarians are probably better lumped in with conservatives (as the terms are used in the US) because in general liberals tends to be more in favor of government than conservatives. Of course, most of the populous is not very consistent about their political philosophy (in one instance they don't want government involved, in other instances they do) so I don't know if libertarians can be considered conservative or liberal but in any event I don't think you can lump liberals and libertarians together as being simliar political views.

But in any event, SOPA is a bad idea and needs to be killed. Pretty much everyone not representing Hollywood can agree on that.

Historically, the parties and the lables associated with them have drifted so much as to make them indistinct.

The Democratic party in it's original platform was Anti-Federalist and firmly supportive of States Rights (a shiny bead currently enshrined by the Republicans). The Federalists were largely supported by banking and economic interests and supported the centralization of government authority so consider the the early Dem's as the opposite of that.

The Republican party was founded to oppose slavery, preserve the union and oppose governmental excess, "free labor, free land, free men" (free as in speech, not as in beer, were the framers of the R's closet open-sourcers?) was the slogan.

Both parties considered themselves based on Jeffersonian principles (though Jefferson was only directly involved in the formation of the Democratic party, which was called the Democratic Republican Party at the time).

Perhaps we should see the wisdom in the Great Bart Simpson:

Bart Simpsom wrote:

The little stupid differences are nothing next to the big stupid similarities!

Both the Dems and GOP are corporatists, and typically "Lawful Stupid" with a twist of greed. The only major difference is which corporations they prefer to worship.

In the case of SOPA, allegiances to Big Media (Hollywood et al) vs Big Technology (Silicon Valley et al) heavily overlap, and are split along regional/personal lines rather than by party. The pro-Media factions hoped to ram it through before the pro-Tech lobbyists got their talking points on the field. I expect SOPA will be shot down now, but Hollywood will try try again with other bills.

Not sure what the intenion was in the comparison to "their liberal and libertarian counterparts" but I don't think it is reasonable to equate "liberal" with "libertarian" as they have substantially different beliefs. Libertarians are probably better lumped in with conservatives (as the terms are used in the US) because in general liberals tends to be more in favor of government than conservatives.

I didn't equate them, I just listed them as two ideologies that aren't conservative. But also after the George W. Bush era it's a little hard to argue that conservatives are principled advocates of less government. They just want big goverment for different purposes&mdash;blocking immigrants, invading foreign countries, spying on Americans, banning abortion and gay sex, etc.

In regards to the actual topic, SOPA. There's enough buzz around the problems with the bill now that politicians are weighing the political cost of support. All of them love the money that the RIAA MPAA funded lobbyists are waving in front of them to pass it, but are not sure if they want to be tainted with the potential liabilities of voting for it (or want to be able to say, like Obama did in 2008 "I stood in the minority and voted against it").

SOPA is a reprehensible piece of legislature as is PIPA and the DMCA before it.

It's a little depressing to think that the entertainment industry is so powerful in America now that it demands such political attention. How did come to Three's Company reruns became the primary export of this country?

I am all for the protection of artists work and laws that encourage creativity and innovation (and one to benefit from that creativity and innovation), I am suspect that the current cheerleaders of increased enforcement powers of copyright system are in large not artists but publishers.

Thanks for even clearer info guys!For someone across the pond your breaking it down into baby steps really helps!

3.3volts wrote:

Personally, I (almost, but not really) hope SOPA makes it to the floor, so I can have an easy litmus test for voting for my representatives.

Fantastic! So we won't have to do this!Let me explain, we had an idea for a plugin (which I will go into little detail below so if anyone else has the time to make it, we wont need to do it ourselves... no time... but also very lazy ) that would basically scan the page for the names of people who support SOPA and pop up a little warning when visiting a page and this name is on the page.

Something as simple as: 2 names of people who supported SOPA found on this page, the names are X and X.

The problem with politicians screwing over their people, they are quickly forgotten and its really hard to keep up with who is doing what since there are so many of the scummies... we thought we would throw in our two cents to change that.

Even if SOPA passes and suddenly MAFIAAFire becomes outlaws, I don't see how they could ban this addon.

If someone wants to take the above idea and make it their own, as we say in Swedish: varsågod (here ya go / you're welcome) , but if no one does it, and you are anyway following your reps, we would really appreciate it if you would/could PM us the names...

I didn't equate them, I just listed them as two ideologies that aren't conservative. But also after the George W. Bush era it's a little hard to argue that conservatives are principled advocates of less government. They just want big goverment for different purposes&mdash;blocking immigrants, invading foreign countries, spying on Americans, banning abortion and gay sex, etc.

Wow, you gave such a balanced and thoughtful answer before, and then you just roll out the bias with this one...so back to my point about Ars.

/edit, sorry I was confusing you with the excellent response from "3.3volts". The kind of simple-minded, biased response you provided is consistent with what I expect from the Ars editorial staff. Carry on.

And there's the fundamental flaw. Like Moriarty said to Sherlock Holmes, "you're not fighting me, you're fighting the human condition."

There will always be someone that wants to steal. You can make it as difficult as you want, but ultimately all you do is punish the law-abiding citizens. And, that's just pissing us off.

I'm not saying stealing is good. I'm saying that it's a fundamental issue these folks need to accept. You can setup laws to PUNISH it, but you can never completely stop it.

Quite frankly, I think they need to tackle the laws for punishment instead. Jammie Thomas-Rasset was guilty of "stealing" some music; ok, she commited the online version of shoplifting. Slap her with a $200 fine and get on with it. But, no, they use laws that were intended for criminals bootlegging crap and making tons of money off of it, and slap her with that $1.5M judgement.

Just make the punishments fit the crime, and accept that there will be a certain amount of your product stolen.

Right now, the stupid arms race they have going on is just a lose-lose situation. They want to spend more time/money on preventing theft, which means they pass on more cost to the customer, which means more customers can't stand the higher prices, which incites more folks to steal instead of buy, which makes them want to spend more on preventing theft ... it's a huge circle jerk.